alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE  COMMISSION  FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998,  AND IS
QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.  THIS
SCHEDULE  HAS BEEN  UPDATED TO REFLECT  THE  ADOPTION  OF  FINANCIAL  ACCOUNTING
STANDARDS BOARD STATEMENT NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE."
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         $1,601,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  34,515,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                     4,468,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               50,626,000
<PP&E>                                         28,095,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,901,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                124,261,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          44,369,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                       56,938,000
<OTHER-SE>                                        835,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  124,261,000
<SALES>                                        35,163,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               35,163,000
<CGS>                                          25,814,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  25,814,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                6,322,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                649,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,378,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,212,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,166,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,166,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .11
        


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA LOCAL UNION NO. 783; et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. HOLLAND & HART, LLP, Counsel for Defendants; et al.,

Appellants,

v. MAMMOTH PACIFIC, LP, a California Lim ited Partnership; et al.,

Defendants. No. 17-15209 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01612-MCE-KJN
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding 

# FILED
MAR 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.Subm itted March 16, 2018 * * San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, * * * District Judge. Mam m oth Pacific LP and Holland & Hart LLP appeal the district court’s decision im posing sanctions in the am ount of $1,500. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. To the extent the district court based its decision to sanction defendants on the grounds that their filings were frivolous and violated the court’s warning not to use footnotes to avoid page lim its, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Zambrano v. City of Tustin , 885 F.2d 1473, 1477, 1484 (9th Cir. 1989). But to the extent the district court based its decision on the ground that the defendants’ filings exceeded the page lim its set by the Pretrial Scheduling Order, it was clearly erroneous. The court failed to recognize that it had set different page lim its in its subsequent October 4, 2016 order (30 pages for dispositive m otions and responses, 15 for replies), which were not violated by the defendants’ 29-page sum m a ry judgm e nt m otion, and 30-page response. (The 19-page reply brief did exceed the page lim it set by the October 4th order.) Because the district court clearly erred in

* * The panel unanim ously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argum e nt. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honorable Lynn S. Adelm an, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation. 2disregarding its October 4th order, we vacate and rem and for a determ ination of

whether sanctions are appropriate in light of the correct page lim its. Each party will bear its own costs on appeal. VACATED AND REMANDED.

3
Organic Integrity Dashboard – 3/31/2022

A quarterly review of National Organic Program (NOP) Enforcement activities

470 Cases in Progress

As of 3/31/2022

297 Closed Cases by Outcome

12 Months ending 3/31/2022

NOTES: Open cases are based on allegations, complaints, and surveillance, and are not in themselves proof of wrongdoing.

Administrative Actions are warnings/notices to businesses, often uncertified, and are critical in establishing that violators are aware 

of the rules, to support future enforcement action if needed.

Investigations & Inquiries by Fiscal Year

Completed Investigations

Resolved inquiries

New Investigations

Total Incoming

Percent Completed

 Bringing Risk to Light in the Organic Supply Chain

Yield analysis is a powerful tool for identifying the risk of fraud in supply 

chains. Using data from trusted sources like the USDA Foreign Agricultural 

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and others, NOP 

Agricultural Economists dive into reliable numbers to identify average expected 

yields for a given time period anywhere in the world. The NOP Compliance and 

Enforcement Strategic Initiatives Team uses this kind of analysis to analyze

spikes in the supply of a commodity and works with certifiers to target 

inspections and testing based on risk to the organic market. 

Over the last six years, this spotlight on questionable production claims is 

one of the enforcement tools used to increase the cost of fraud in the market 

for grain, grapes, and other commodities. This critical behind-the-scenes work 

is another example of the “many hands” working to continually strengthen the trust of organic farmers and consumers. 

Learn more about the National Organic Program: www.ams.usda.gov/Organic

USDA is an equal opportunity, employer, provider, and lender.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>                            This   schedule   contains   summary
                                    financial information extracted from
                                    the   consolidated   Statements   of
                                    Operations and Balance Sheets and is
                                    qualified   in   its   entirety   by
                                    reference    to    such    financial
                                    statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                        1
<CURRENCY>                          US Dollars
       
<S>                                 <C> 
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                     1
<CASH>                              2,019,715
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                       29,143,208
<ALLOWANCES>                        706,000
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    37,171,475
<PP&E>                              51,448,136
<DEPRECIATION>                      8,630,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      130,526,981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               30,062,983
<BONDS>                             0
<COMMON>                            222,177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<OTHER-SE>                          47,933,356
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        130,526,981
<SALES>                             177,552,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    177,552,961
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       168,660,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  4,310,359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     4,581,741
<INCOME-TAX>                        (7,114,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 11,695,741
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        11,695,741
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                       .49
        

</TABLE>
32 P.3d 139

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

Sept. 17, 2001

23313, 23318

#### Doe, In re

Affirmed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply2386Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Margaret breuker (not verified)PermalinkJanuary 15, 2021 - 9:56pmWonderful job- my heart goes out to all of you who maintain the building and grounds- we are lucky to have you all there, doing what you do.  Thank you!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 16, 2015

NO. 03-14-00399-CV

Law Office of Larry Laden, Larry Laden, P.C.; Larry Laden, Individually;

and Clay Boulware, Individually, Appellants

v.

Alysa Baker, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON JOINT MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on January 8, 2014. The parties 

have filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court 

agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses 

the appeal. Appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court 

below.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Brian E. Dearing, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ARI Network
         Services, Inc.;

2.       Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
         untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
         necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
         under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
         the period covered by this quarterly report; and

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
         information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
         material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
         cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
         this quarterly report.

Date: December 15, 2003

                                           By: /s/ Brian E. Dearing
                                               ---------------------------------
                                           By: Brian E. Dearing
                                           Title: Chairman, President and CEO

This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by
the Company for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Pat Lane Swanzy, Jr., Appellant

No. 06

- 12

- 00157

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the of County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2012F00110 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss

, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appe llant, Pat Lane Swanzy, Jr., has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 29, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
April 10, 2007

27518

#### Lepere v. Hanaumi

Affirmed
#### State v. Neff

18263

11/12/96

Affirmed in part, Vacated and Remanded
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TERRA
NITROGEN COMPANY, L.P., AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              36
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,281
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     50,179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,812
<PP&E>                                         286,185
<DEPRECIATION>                                 121,944
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 226,811
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,124
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     176,716<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   226,811
<SALES>                                         53,784
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,073
<CGS>                                           53,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,217
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,039)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,039)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
<FN>
<F1>DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PARTNERSHIP, THIS REPRESENTS PARTNERS' CAPITAL.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Centa Ingenleuf, Plaintiff, *v.*Harmac Properties, Inc. et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

January 27, 1959.

*5
      *Samuel SeligsoTm*for plaintiff.

*Joseph J. Shapiro*and *David Brown*for Harry Gilson, defendant.

Charles A. Loreto, J.

The judgment entered herein was pursuant to a stipulation entered during trial in open court. The action charged the individual defendant with fraud. The stipulation provides that in the event of default in making the stipulated payments, judgment in fraud would be entered. Such a judgment has been entered.

The plaintiff now applies for the issuance of a body execution, the defendant having failed to make payments in satisfaction of the judgment. The opposition to the motion is to the effect that the stipulation constitutes a new contractual obligation, superseding and displacing the tort cause of action sounding in fraud and, therefore, that it is a waiver of plaintiff’s right to a body execution. This contention is without merit, as the judgment was éntered pursuant to the stipulation. The case of *Yonkers Fur Dressing Co.*v. *Royal Ins. Co.*(247 N. Y. 435) is inapplicable. The issuance of an execution against the person under section 764 of the Civil Practice Act rests in the discretion of the court.

The motion papers indicate that the defendant took unconscionable and fraudulent advantage of an elderly woman and should be required to live up to his agreement to repay the money he wrongfully took from her. The court believes that his conduct is evasive and purposely obstructive to the discharge of this obligation. The offer to submit to an examination in supplementary proceedings in view of his prior conduct is not worthy of consideration, as it would be futile, vexatious, unproductive and merely add to plaintiffs’ already burdensome task in seeking a recovery of her now much-needed money. His offer to make a down payment of $200 and $50 per month thereafter is also unacceptable, under the facts and circumstances here presented.

The motion is granted, unless within 10 days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon the said defendant *6pays to the plaintiff the sum of $400 and the sum of $100 monthly until the unpaid balance of the judgment is wholly paid and discharged, and that an order for the issuance of an execution against his person may be granted in the event of default in any payment herein directed.

Settle order.
20859

#### State v. Inoshita

Affirmed
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AtlanticTele-Network, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2010as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Michael T. Prior, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                       | Atlantic  Tele-Network, Inc. |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                       |                              |   |
| Date:  August 9, 2010 | By:                               | /s/  Michael T. Prior |
|                       |                              | Michael  T. Prior |
|                       |                              | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2279

___________

Yacoub Quomsieh; Muna Quomsieh; *

Hanin Quomsieh; Nadeen Quomsieh; *

Balquees Quomsieh; Jeries Quomsieh; *

Danial Quomsieh, *

*

Petitioners, *

* Petition for Review from the

v. * Board of Immigration Appeals.

*

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: April 14, 2008

Filed: April 18, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Yacoub Quomsieh and his family, Palestinian Christians from the West Bank,

seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their

motion to reopen their removal proceedings. They contend that changed

circumstances—that the Hamas organization has taken over control of the Palestinian
-2-

Authority—warrant the grant of an untimely motion to reopen. We deny the petition

for review.

The Quomsiehs entered the United States in 2001, and, in January 2002, they

filed their petitions for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the

Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their petitions, and

the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. A panel of this court denied the Quomsiehs’

petitions for review in March 2007. See Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 602 (8th

Cir. 2007). 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Quomsiehs failed to

establish changed circumstances which would justify reopening the removal

proceedings. Alemu v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 907, 909 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of

review). “[M]otions to reopen are disfavored because they undermine the

government’s legitimate interest in finality . . . .” Id. Thus, the Attorney General

retains considerable discretion over such motions, and that discretion is abused only

where the BIA “gives no rational explanation for its decision; departs from its

established policies without explanation; relies on impermissible factors or legal error;

or ignores or distorts the record evidence.” Id. (citations omitted). 

The evidence the Quomsiehs submitted with their motion includes articles

discussing the Hamas takeover of the Palestinian Authority. In reviewing this

evidence and a State Department report on the status of religious relations in Israel

and the Occupied Territories, the BIA concluded that while there were “tensions

between Christians and Muslims . . . the new Palestinian Authority (PA) government

ha[d] taken steps to eliminate religious incitement.” This finding is a reasonable

interpretation of the evidence presented by the Quomsiehs and from the State

Department report, and the evidence does not show that the territory has undergone

a material change in circumstances.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 

______________________________